Selective Memory for Artificial Intelligence: Write-Time Gating with Hierarchical Archiving

Agentic LLMs must continuously decide whether newly extracted facts should be added, merged with existing memories, or ignored, yet prior work has focused more on retrieval and storage than on principled write-side control. We frame memory evolution as a novelty-detection problem and propose SAGE, a Spherical Adaptive Gate for memory Evolution that scores candidate facts with a von Mises-Fisher-based density estimator over memory embeddings and routes them with an adaptive threshold that tracks memory-store geometry. SAGE resolves clearly novel facts as ADD, clearly redundant facts as NOOP, and sends only uncertain cases to an LLM merge step, reducing expensive write-time reasoning. On LoCoMo, SAGE achieves the best average token-F1 against Mem0 on all seven open-weight backbone comparisons, while on GPT-4o-mini it reduces add-phase API cost by 3.4$\times$ and add-phase latency by 2.5$\times$ with only a small average judge-score gap. As a drop-in binary gate for A-Mem, SAGE skips roughly 16-18% of LLM calls across five models with minimal quality change on open-weight backbones. These results suggest that novelty-aware write control is a practical lever for improving both memory quality and system efficiency in long-term agentic memory. The source code for our approach is accessible at https://github.com/swang1024/SAGE.

Large language models (LLMs) have become the foundation of personalized assistants, but maintaining persistent user memory across long-term interactions remains challenging. Existing memory systems often focus on storage, retrieval, or consolidation, while memory writing remains less controlled: transient requests, duplicate statements, and outdated user states may enter memory and later be retrieved for personalization. In this paper, we present AMU: Admission and Memory Update for Personalized Conversations, an SLM-guided (Small language model guided) structured framework for writing-time memory control. AMU uses structured memory filtering to decide what should enter memory and SLM-guided storage management to determine whether an admitted record should be stored separately, discarded as a duplicate, or fused as an update. We evaluate AMU in a controlled memory writing and retrieval setting. Experimental results show that AMU maintains cleaner and more retrievable personalized memories.

Deterministic hash-addressed conditional memory permits local post-hoc knowledge injection. Extending arXiv:2610.21553's bounded-feasibility audit rejecting under-specified generality claims with repaired probes and training-dose/capacity axes, we give, to our knowledge, the first production-scale write-content verdict. We test 124M-7B self-trained/publicly pretrained beds, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next-FP8 (176.95B; 320,001,536 FP8 rows), and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash. Write coverage requires a sufficiently trained backbone prior, full-width readout, trainable gates; undertrained-bed intervention confirms a threshold, not a slope. At fixed budget, coverage falls from 98% (50 facts) to 12.7% (1,000); table size is not binding. Two-hop composition does not exceed the independent single-hop baseline (26% observed vs 25% expected; 15% lexical-distortion floor). Synergy remains absent across dose/load in two independent bed families. A 28-percentage-point in-context gap (given vs recalled intermediates) localizes failure to retrieval-for-reasoning, not gate access. Writes are independently retrievable, precisely addressable, reversible atoms, not composable into reasoning. A layered protocol, the first, to our knowledge, to cover compositionality in behavioral memory evaluation, separates baseline, synergy and distortion floor. Any addressed/key-value memory must report coverage, synergy ratio and distortion rate before deployment claims. Composition must be system-orchestrated; multi-constraint queries should explicitly chain written atoms. In-context controls show given intermediate entities are exploited at twice the implicit rate. Production load fits exponential interference ($R^2=0.98$); its mechanism, between budget dilution and write interference, remains open. All numbers are recomputed from archived raw logs/JSON; a fresh 52-target production rerun gives 52/52, exactly matching archived baselines.